Red Mass Group - taxes

Andover Teacher Can Has Writes Good

Garrett Quinn — Fri, 08 May 2009 18:38:09 GMT

"Andover teachers are not paid well because of the evil multinational corporations that control 25% of the world's wealth while only making up 5% of it and this is because we blamed the public sector for far too long and tax cuts and this is what an abusive relationship is like and rich people have too much money because of tax cuts for the wealthy and stagnant wages and this hurts teachers and we're so screwed and everybody is hurting and you can afford a tax increase even though you're broke and..."

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! SHUT UP! LEARN HOW TO WRITE!

Some teacher from Andover High School wrote this piece of garbage demanding voters pass a Prop 2 ½ override so he can get a goddamn raise. Everyone in Andover should vote against this override because this asshole cannot write. Enough with the sob story about how YOU need a raise. What about the rest of the taxpayers who are struggling to make ends meet? This line of "we're not paid enough, no one appreciates us" from the government employee unions never ends. This guy cannot even formulate the line properly. If you're going to make a case for higher property taxes do not bring up corporations and wealth inequality. Talk about how budgets will impact the art programs or field hockey. Talk about how losing teachers will result in children growing and not knowing how to form a decent paragraph.

I want to shove a pencil in my eye.

BHI's new study on the Proposed Tax Increases for Infrastructure and Education in the Commonwealth

Beacon Hill Institute — Wed, 22 May 2013 18:14:45 GMT

(BOSTON - May 21, 2013) The current version of the state legislature’s proposed budget will diminish economic activity less than the Governor’s original House 1 proposal. This is the finding of a new study from the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University.

Applying its State Tax Analysis Modeling Program (STAMP), the Institute compared both budget proposals and found that the legislature’s plan would destroy fewer jobs and investment and impose a far lighter claim on real household disposable income. In summary, the model found that the Governor’s proposal would:

• Raise $1.876 billion in new tax revenue
• Reduce employment by 17,800 jobs
• Shrink real disposable income by $1.2 billion, or by $480 per household
• Lower investment in the state by $120 million.

BHI also analyzed the House proposal released last month finding that the legislature’s plan would:

• Raise state tax revenue by $466 million in the first year
• Reduce employment by 2,460 jobs
• Shrink real disposable income by $643 million, or by $250 per household
• Lower investment in the state by $2 million.

'The Governor had hoped that his original budget would be the blueprint for the future," says Frank Conte, a co-author of the study. "However, the legislature is taking a relatively more fiscally conservative position, understanding that tax increases of the Governor’s magnitude do exert negative effects."

The study also questioned the wisdom of dramatically increasing education spending in Massachusetts since the extra spending would have no effect on performance. More spending on transportation such as rail would also be counterproductive and prone to overruns.

"While the legislature’s more modest proposal produces less economic harm, lawmakers should recognize that linking infrastructure funding to taxing products such as tobacco and gasoline, whose consumption is falling and will continue to fall in the future is a tenuous proposition at best," writes lead author Rosolino Candela. “The Governor and legislature need to seek innovative alternatives to fund the state’s infrastructure needs. “

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax

John Howard — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 22:56:39 GMT

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax, but not the right way. They want to make internet retailers collect the state sales taxes, requiring them to use difficult to maintain software to determine the correct tax (and apparently requiring states to provide the tax formula software at no cost to every customer, except small internet businesses would be excepted, and so on, way too complicated). They are missing a chance to transition to a federal sales tax that could eventually replace the IRS income tax. Instead of collecting state sales taxes, there should be a uniform 10% federal tax on all transactions over the internet, which could all be returned to the state where the sale came from, or put in the federal coffers. There should be no complex state software updates, so small internet business wouldn't be burdened. It should be part of a federal secure banking transaction infrastructure that collects the full total at the time of the transaction from the customer's account, depositing it in the giant federal account, and then, a few minutes or days later, depositing 90% of the amount in the seller's account.

Well that's my idea, again. Anyone have any other ideas or know what the senate candidates think?

$500M Tax increase debated today

Rob "EaBo Clipper" Eno — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 13:27:36 GMT

Today, on Beacon Hill, house legislators will debate, and possibly vote on the Democratic Legislature's alternative transportation proposal H3382. Included in the debate are 101 amendments.

The session will begin at 10:30 this morning. You can watch online here (flash required).

You can hear an in-depth discussion of transportation issues, from WBUR here:

Charles Chieppo, of the Pioneer Institute, who is part of the discussion above, has a policy paper which you read here (pdf).

In addition, this weekend progressive Democratic House Member Lori Ehrlich (D-Marblehead), wrote a lengthy op-ed on why she doesn't support the Governor's proposal. She sees his tax increases as a non-starter, especially in this economy. The meat of her op-ed can be seen here:

Over and over, I hear from people that they are worried about paying their bills. To overburden people with taxes to pay for "new wants" beyond necessary "needs" would be poor leadership. Heeding signs of alarm from the state's bond-rating agencies, the legislature's approach is sensitive to the economic needs of the middle class and small business owners rather than raising their taxes. This plan will also not interrupt what is still a fragile economic recovery. It is moderate and provides a dedicated revenue stream without completely upending the tax code and increasing the income tax.

Updates as they become available.

$500,000,000 in new taxes

martylamb — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 01:43:10 GMT

Last week, without even a hearing, the Massachusetts House put on the calendar for debate tomorrow a bill that raises taxes by $500 million. It contains tax on utility bills, a $1 per pack hike in cigarette taxes, a gas tax indexed to inflation and a new service sales tax on computer design work.

Unfortunately, our State Representative Carolyn Dykema and fellow Democrats squashed all attempts to allow public hearings on these proposed tax increases. If that isn't bad enough, motions to allow more time for public feedback and amendments were voted down on straight party lines.

Are these tax increases a good or bad idea? Will they help or hurt our economy? What effect will this have on taxpayers? Do we even need a tax increase?

There should be a public discussion and time for public input. This Wednesday night The Holliston republican town Committee will be holding a public forum so taxpayers can learn more about the proposed tax increase. The event will feature Paul Craney, Executive Director of Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance, Chip Faulkner Associate Director of Citizens for Limited Taxation, and Mike Hruby President of New Jobs for Massachusetts.

This event is open to the public and free. I hope that you will attend.

Wednesday April 10 from 7 to 9 PM

in the Training Room
Holliston Police Department
550 Washington Street, Holliston

Please note that the Holliston Police Department does not allow food or drink, other than water, in the training room.

Any questions, please call 617-513-4368

My 5 Questions for Dan Winslow

tenminutemajor — Mon, 25 Mar 2013 16:44:19 GMT

Yesterday, BNCordeiro shared a very legitimate concern he has about Dan Winslow's candidacy in the special election, how Winslow appears to be presumptively dismissing certain constituencies that are fundamental to Republicans and to the conservative movement. Admittedly, I'm leaning strongly toward preferring that Mike Sullivan win the Republican nomination for US Senate in the special election Republican primary. Still, if Dan Winslow were to adequately answer these questions, it might help me warm up to him. For the sake of discussion, these are the questions I would ask Dan Winslow if I could.

1. Why did you, Dan Winslow, give $500 to Martha Coakley, and do you regret it?

2. The Attleboro Sun Chronicle reported that you, Dan Winslow, are "willing to consider President Barack Obama's call for closing tax loopholes to raise revenue." Is this accurate? Since "closing tax loopholes" is just a euphemism for raising taxes (heck, we all remember Mitt Romney's "fees," right?), and Republicans in Washington have already given Obama tons of new taxes in their latest tax negotiation surrender, why would you raise even more revenue through more taxes?

3. I was impressed that Mike Sullivan was able to get enough signatures to get on the ballot using just supporters and volunteers. That's a ground game! And it reminded me of Jim McKenna's valiant effort. Why should I have faith, Dan Winslow, that you will have a strong enough field operation to compete with the Beacon Hill Democrat Union machine when you had to give your own campaign $100,000 (That's almost your entire 2004 salary! See below.) to pay for signatures to get on the ballot? Mike Sullivan got it done, so why couldn't you?

4. Lefties like Blue Mass Group and Rachel Maddow made fun of you for pandering to us after you said that you didn't like being in yacht clubs, even though you were a board member of a yacht club. (We don't need more lefty media distractions like Scott Brown's secret meetings with kings and queens.) Also, the Boston Herald informed us that your income went from $120,000 in 2004 to over half-a-million bucks in 2010. When my guy Howie Carr talks about the Beautiful People, well, you get the picture. Why, Dan Winslow, are you trying to act like you are a middle-class regular Joe when you aren't?

5. Call me crazy, but I want Republicans to support other Republicans. Why would you, Dan Winslow, work in 2012 for an unproductive effort like Americans Elect that would only serve to weaken the Republican nominee's chances against the incumbent Democrat President Obama? (Heck, the only thing Americans Elect accomplished was spending $1 million in support of a US Senator, Angus King of Maine, who is caucusing with the Democrat party! You worked for that!)

I think these 5 questions for Dan Winslow are tough questions. They are supposed to be tough questions. If Dan Winslow could answer all 5 of the questions, I could consider him against Mike Sullivan, maybe, but, for what it's worth, these are some of the big sticking points. Admittedly, I do think that Dan Winslow will have a lot of difficulty answering these. (There is a reason Mike Sullivan can call himself "tested and trusted.")

The Tierney-Obama tax kicks in, jobs slashed in Andover

Karl Marx — Sat, 02 Feb 2013 17:15:56 GMT

No one wanted to listen, save for Sen. Brown, to how the Obamacare taxes on medical devices would hurt manufacturers in Massachusetts. Now at least one firm with local connections is announcing layoffs.

MEMPHIS, Tenn. (CBSDC) - A medical company is blaming President Obama's health care law for the layoffs of nearly 100 people.
Smith & Nephew says a 2.3 percent excise tax on medical devices in the "Obamacare" law caused the layoffs in the Memphis and Andover, Mass., offices.
"The nearly $30 billion tax on medical devices that took effect Jan. 1, 2013, has impacted a number of companies across the U.S.," the company said in a statement to WHBQ-TV.
Joe Metzger, senior vice president of corporate communications for the company, tells the Memphis Business Journal that they were "not immune" to the tax burden.
"Unfortunately, and in order to absorb this cost burden into our business, this has meant less than 100 positions have been made redundant across various departmental functions in our Tennessee and Massachusetts sites," Metzger told the Business Journal. "The company is providing the affected employees with a comprehensive severance package and outplacement support."

Let's remind everyone that Rep. John Tierney supported Obamacare.

How Does One Spell Campaign Implosion? F E R R O

DeanCavaretta — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 23:16:36 GMT

So Rick Green has only been a Registered Republican since 2011 (Source: Town of Pepperell residence listing). And Kirsten Hughes registered to vote as a Republican in Quincy in 1998 at the age of 22 (Source: Hughes Quincy voter registration card).

Yet, Paul Ferro and Matt Elder in their zeal for Mr. Green, are going to lecture the Quincy City Councilor and all of her supporters on voting, website claims and activist credentials?

Ok, fine, but their half-truths and lame tactics are moves NOT from the NewMassPlaybook, but a page right out of the John Walsh Playbook.

Item: Voting to adjust the annual property tax levy (within the guidelines of Proposition 2.5), especially when Elder and the Marlborough City Council passed a similar measure, along with countless other localities across our fiscally strapped Commonwealth does not constitute "massive tax increases" as Mr. Elder would like RMG readers to believe.

Actually, Ms. Hughes has never supported a tax override while on the City Council.

Item: Calling out Ms. Hughes for voting elsewhere or not voting at other times in the decade preceding our current one when (R) newcomer Green has zero political, fundraising or volunteer experience in the same time period proves what exactly?

Read State Committeewoman Elizabeth Mahoney's Voting Analysis of our two candidates here: http://tinyurl.com/b4tuzzt

Lastly, this has been a hotly contested campaign. If true, I applaud Rick Green for just taking down the Ferro Endorsement from his campaign website. I thought Steve Grossman conspiring with the Boston Globe in their last minute 2010 attack on Candidate for Treasurer Karyn Polito and the Red Sox License Plate Story was the lowest blow I've seen in American politics.

This week's manufactured attacks and so-called 'opposition research' by a Chairman of one of my Republican City Committees is a close second.

Dean Cavaretta, 2012 (R) Candidate for State Senate

Acton, Ayer, Boxborough, Harvard, Hudson, Littleton, Maynard, Precinct 3 of Northborough, Shirley, Southborough, Stow, Precincts 2 and 3 of Sudbury, Westborough, MARLBOROUGH and Devens.

For more information on how NOT to campaign like we have just seen the last 48-72 hours, log-on to www.NewMassPlaybook.com for more information.

Elder Misfires With Tax Criticism; Blame Democrats Not One of Your Own

DeanCavaretta — Mon, 28 Jan 2013 23:03:51 GMT

Under Proposition 2½, a Massachusetts municipality is subject to two tax limits: Ceiling: The total annual property tax revenue raised shall not exceed 2.5% of the assessed value of all taxable property contained in it. Increase limit: The annual increase of property tax cannot exceed 2.5%, plus the amount attributable from new real property.

These limits refer to the entire amount of the annual tax levy.

(An exception, under the 1980 State Law, allows for citizens of each municipality to override the 2½ restriction to address specific needs of the community, thus giving the People direct control over their taxation).

Thanks to the utter lack of leadership from the Democrats on Beacon Hill, and after the One Party in Power has squandered millions upon millions on failed, so-called "Green Job" Subsidies, local officials across the Commonwealth are left with very few options to control their rising fixed costs from blowing holes in municipal and school budgets.

Every year.

Therefore, Matt Elder's recent RMG comments questioning Kirsten Hughes over Quincy Property Taxes is unfair and misfires. It takes one away from the true culprits in this ongoing local budget dilemma: The Tax and Spend Democrats Cutting Local Aid in the Middle of This Great Recession.

Beacon Hill just continues to cost shift their bills for our schools and basic services from Marlborough to Quincy and all points in between.

Ms. Hughes has never supported a local tax override during her tenure on the Quincy City Council. And like Marlborough or other communities throughout our state, Quincy is being asked to shoulder more financial burdens while this Governor and Legislature stubbornly argue that Massachusetts somehow has a revenue problem.

Mr. Elder: In these tough economic times, which Town Board or City Council has NOT adjusted local property tax rates under their annual levy limit? Yours has.

So let's blame the Democrats not one of your own.

Dean Cavaretta
@DeanCav

Unlike Obama Governor Patrick is a polical heaveyweight

gboag — Thu, 17 Jan 2013 06:56:15 GMT

I do not support Governor Patrick's proposal to raise the income tax nor his boost in state spending. But his proposal to cut the sales tax demonstrates he is operating on a political level light years ahead of the state's Republican leadership.
For full disclosure I will point out that I ran for state rep arguing the GOP should push for large cuts in the sales tax instead of small cuts in the income tax. My humiliation in the primary shows this may not be a great issue. But I still believe it could be.
The governor will try to sell his plan as tax reform not a tax increase. The GOP must be careful how they fight against the plan. Embrace the sales tax cut but argue for revenue neutrality on any sales tax decrease. Most likely the much higher income tax will pass anyway but the Republicans can argue against the excessive income tax increase and take credit for a sales tax decrease.
I argued the sales tax should be cut in 2 or 3 steps to 3%. Should we get to 4.5-5% this could be a helpful issue for the next GOP governor candidate to run on. The 4.5% rate can likely be achieved with no income tax increase if the state budget grows at a very small rate. This is unlikely in the end but should give the Republicans in the legislature a strong case to argue.

MassDOT "21 Century Transportation Plan"

MassFiscal — Wed, 16 Jan 2013 12:44:56 GMT

Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance Memos are intended to guide the public on current issues affecting our state. The memos are typically one page and provide important facts on topics facing our state, how it affects us and are current to the activities being discussed by our leaders. More information, may be found on our website at MassFiscal.org/Memos Below is the text from our memo regarding MassDOT's revenue plan to fully fund transportation and additional projects. A PDF copy of this memo may be found on our website as well.
On Monday, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (DOT) revealed a potential plan that lays out additional revenue sources for the state's transportation funding. The plan calls for an average of $1.02 billion per year in new revenue over the next 10 years. The plan would fully fund operations and implement a "21 Century Transportation Plan." Among the revenue proposals were five tax increases, as follows: payroll tax of 0.16 percent, gas tax increase by 30 cents per gallon, state sales tax increase to 7.75%, income tax increase to 5.66%, and finally, a new vehicle miles traveled tax of 2.4 cents per mile. It is unclear at this time, which of these revenue increases would be preferred by our elected leaders to fund the DOT plan.

The new 0.16% payroll tax proposed in Regional Transit Authority (RTA) districts would be a new regional tax, penalizing companies that employ workers within the RTA districts. If our goal is to put more people to work and be more business friendly, this is not a proper approach.

Next, although this tax has received much attention in the past few years, it remains one of the weakest options. Despite its unpopularity throughout the state (83% oppose a 15 cent increase ) the Mass DOT plan proposed a 30 cent per gallon gas tax increase which would take the Massachusetts gas tax from 21 cents to 51 cents. This would not only put Massachusetts as the highest in the New England area, but further, the highest in the nation. The federal gas tax is 18.4 cents per gallon, compounding the two taxes would cost Massachusetts drivers nearly 70 cents per gallon in taxes.

The next tax proposed was the state sales tax increase from our current 6.25% to 7.75%. This increase would again, not only put Massachusetts as the highest in the New England region, but also highest in the nation with California coming in at number two at 7.5%. The Massachusetts sales tax last increased in 2009, from 5% to 6.25%, a 25% increase. This proposed increase would be the 2nd over the last 4 years, rising nearly 55% since 2009.

Another proposal was raising the state income tax from 5.25% to 5.66%. Currently, Massachusetts is one of only seven states that issue a flat income tax. Among these other six, Massachusetts already has the highest tax percentage. However, if Massachusetts were to raise the income tax to 5.66% that would put us further out of touch with neighboring New Hampshire which has 0% income tax. Additionally, this increase would place Massachusetts as the 2nd highest among New England states based on the national medium income of $52,762.

The new vehicle miles traveled tax that was proposed would tax 2.4 cents for every mile traveled. This is difficult to put into perspective because despite pilot programs, no other state has implemented this tax, putting Massachusetts at the highest in the nation if applied. With the uncertainty of the effectiveness of such a new concept, this seems like a less than viable option. The proposed methods of measuring miles traveled are viewed as possible infringements to personal privacy and have a number of possible loopholes.

While we may agree that transportation needs should be at the forefront, these proposals may place Massachusetts at an economic disadvantage lacking competitiveness with neighboring states.

This should mean war! Deval unleashes his inner tax and fee child!

Karl Marx — Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:54:26 GMT

A billion a year for the next decade. Pony up folks.

BOSTON (CBS) - Governor Deval Patrick unveiled his long term plan for funding transportation in the Commonwealth Monday and, if approved, it will impact every driver in Massachusetts.
Read: Entire Transportation Plan (.pdf)
Patrick's proposal aims to bridge a $1.02 billion budget gap each year for the next decade and "solve the funding crisis for our transportation system for a generation."
Without new revenue options, registration fees, vehicle inspection fees, the cost of getting a driver's licence, tolls on the Massachusetts Turnpike and MBTA fares will all go up under the governor's plan.
For example, what you pay to register you car will go up $53. Currently, a standard passenger vehicle registration is $50. That means it would now cost $103.

Elections have consequences.

Between A Rock & A Hard Place

The Angelic One — Sun, 23 Dec 2012 04:55:44 GMT

Unless one has a paid subscription to the Wall Street Journal, one won't have the opportunity to gag over this:

Mr. (Barack) Obama repeatedly lost patience with the speaker as negotiations faltered. In an Oval Office meeting last week, he told Mr. (John) Boehner that if the sides didn't reach agreement, he would use his inaugural address and his State of the Union speech to tell the country the Republicans were at fault.
At one point, Boehner told the president, "I put $800 billion [in tax revenue] on the table. What do I get for that?"
Replied Obama: "You get nothing. I get that for free."

The Stupid Party vs. The Corrupt Party. America's caught between a rock & a hard place. It's going to be a VERY long four years.

BMG's David Kravitz now agrees with don't-get-cute on progressive tax

John Howard — Sat, 01 Dec 2012 16:04:50 GMT

David, here are some links to some of my comments and my diary on BMG that makes the same arguments you are now making regarding the SJC's interpretation of Article 44. When I made these points last year, I was frustrated that you (and christopher) simply dismissed them by citing Article 44, without considering my contention that Article 44 has been interpreted wrongly and we should ignore that interpretation. It's not too late to add a link now, since it was on BMG and you own it anyway now.

Article 44 makes a reasonable distinction between income derived from property being able to be taxed higher than income not derived from property that I think is itself a graduated tax in spirit, not on people with higher income but on people with higher amassed wealth. The question is if the person's income is due to their property, then tax it higher. Thus the Harvard professor in the Raymond SJC case might just be deriving their salary due to their owning a contract such as tenure that is tied to the property known as Harvard University, but another teacher earning the same amount but without a contract granting them a share of a limited resource like a land-grant University's reputation and campus and property is earning it purely on their teaching ability, so should be taxed less. The idea is to compensate for the tendency for the rich to get richer while the poor get poorer. The rich, obviously, are those with property, and when they use their property to earn their income, they have an advantage over people with out that property, so tax them more. One could even say that income derived from a college degree should be taxed higher than someone earning the same salary but without a college degree. Though of course you can't just buy a degree (supposedly).

Romney routs the President. The GOP has chosen wisely.

Karl Marx — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 03:08:52 GMT

Mitt Romney re-introduced himself to the nation with a stunning performance that even David Axelrod, with a very thin reed upon which to praise his boss, gave the former MA governor points for style.

But it was Romney's substance that rolled over Obama throughout the 90 minute debate. On taxes, the budget and health care, Romney was well-briefed, intelligent and exceptionally crisp. His strong convention speech was strong but soon forgotten in the noise of the campaign. The debate performance lost none of the August enthusiasm. The resilient Romney has come alive when it matters the most. Game-change is a term that doesn't capture the energy coming from the once-skeptical base from last night's showing.

In contrast, Obama was off his charming game, stumbling, stretching for facts, grasping for flashes of me-too responses. Obama favors cutting taxes. Did you hear that? The debate showed that Obama has spent too much time on the night-time shows and The View, away from the gritty details that spell success. Can we thank Romney stand-in, Senator John Kerry for bad preparation? And can we now praise Sen. Rob Portman for any sagely advice given to Gov. Romney?

Romney was presidential and thoughtful. He put in a performance that not only revived his candidacy but the Republican Party. Romney reminds us that he is a GOP presidential candidate who can string together a coherent sentence freeing use from the despair of candidates who don't get the power of language.The party faithful who early on put their faith in Romney have been vindicated. The cantankerous Tea Party should realize the stakes on November 6. Romney's citation of the 10th amendment and its wrap-around defense of RomneyCare was a shrill call to those worried about the breaching of the constitution by executive order.

The President's performance was so listless and unfocused that the compliant mainstream media refused to spin on his behalf. It too must think of its credibility on occasion.

The President declined for some reason not to sting Romney on the supposed weak links of the GOP recapitulated time and time again by the media: no mention of the Romney 47% gaffe, no talk on budget items favoring women i.e. health care and family planning. There was the usual pandering to college students by President who blamed the fee-gauging bankers, those middle men in the student loan chain. But the President could not connect.

More critically and more specifically the superior Romney performance exposes the pathetic liberal media bias that has dominated the news cycle since the end of the conventions. Romney has called them out. He has the details. He has the style. He has the chops.

Look for the media to sober up and assume its natural default position boosting Obama in the next debate.

A post-debate insta-poll from CNN showed 67% believed Romney had a superior night.

Game on!

Tierney's lack of tax transparency! In a contest of character, Tisei, wins by a mile

Karl Marx — Wed, 26 Sep 2012 11:29:30 GMT

Who exactly is running the Tierney campaign? Since he has a thin record and is a rubber stamp for Pelosi and a tax hiker who doesn't care about companies in his own district, Tierney is all about baseless attacks.

1) His effort to tie the most moderate Richard Tisei to the Tea Party and Sarah Palin are off the mark and insults the basic intelligence of the voter in the Sixth District. Tisei voted against his party a substantial amount of the time and compensated for that with excellent constituent services and the ability to win time and time again in a very Democratic district. Running against the Tea Party is not a sound strategy. It just might make the TP base overlook Tisei's shortcomings.

2) His effort to paper over the gambling issue by drawing some kind of moral equivalence with the Tisei's family legal problems of which were routine for any family in business is going nowhere (except in the Democratic fever swamps and the media). Apparently yellow dog Democrats in the Congressional delegation and AGCoakley buys into this.

3) And now Tierney's "tax" problems. Were the ill-gotten gains a gift to his wife or a fee for services performed by his wife on behalf of a criminal enterprise?

The Globe checks in this morning and it's not looking good for Pelosi's main go-to guy, the man from Salem, John Tierney. Again the media is not immune to the moral equivalence game the Democrats are playing and there's a little of that in today's Globe story. As a businessman Tisei took risks and had to meet a payroll (which is more we can say for Tierney lack of business experience). For a few years Tisei went without any income save for his state salary. As a politician Tierney is a lifelong hack who knew that gambling was a thread in his wife's family and that he as a member of Congress was likely to vote on legalizing gambling.

Tisei, the former Republican minority leader of the state Senate, paid no federal income taxes in 2006 or 2008, after reporting losses from his Lynnfield real estate firm and two rental properties, according to 10 years of tax returns he provided at the request of the Globe.
Tierney, meanwhile, has resisted disclosing any of his returns despite a public pledge to do so, numerous requests by the Globe, and new questions about whether he and his wife should have reported to the IRS at least some portion of the $200,000 that federal prosecutors say his wife received from a brother's illegal gambling business, from 2003 to 2010.
Late Tuesday afternoon, after being pressed for weeks and being told the story would be published the next day, an attorney for Tierney offered to show the congressman's tax returns to the newspaper in his office on Thursday morning - too late for the Globe to publish a newspaper story before the first scheduled debate Thursday afternoon. He did not promise to give the Globe copies of the returns so that they could be analyzed by outside experts.

Moreover Tisei comes out looking as middle class as he claism.

Anthony Russo, a senior tax director and certified public accountant with the firm BDO United States, reviewed Tisei's returns for the Globe and said they are typical of recent returns filed by small business owners in Massachusetts, particularly those working in the troubled real estate market.
"They're pure vanilla," he said of Tisei's returns.

The unemployed are the people hurt most by the current tax code

seascraper — Tue, 18 Sep 2012 14:57:35 GMT

...or, Why Republicans Lose Elections.

Mitt Romney is whining about why he is not winning.

The unemployed are the people hurt worst by the current tax code, because it's inefficiencies, disincentives the growth, favoritism and loopholes have the biggest effect on those on the margin, who would be able to get jobs if capital was deployed properly.

Some of the unemployed don't feel like working, and are content with the small pleasures they are able to scrounge. Sure those people will vote Democrat. The government waste machine will vote Democrat. This is the Democratic zombie constituency.

But some portion of the 47% understands that they will never live a true middle class life while on government assistance. I'm talking about vacation, good schools, good house, retirement, passing along an inheritance. These people are available to Republicans and will be in the future even if they don't vote this time if Romney could deliver.

But right now they understand that the Republicans are not focused on policies which will deliver growth and advancement, but are at least partially protecting their own zombie constituencies. Are health insurance companies really the best way to deliver health care? No but that is a Republican constituency.

For our politics to move beyond the current stalemate, we need to stop viewing elections as efforts to claw resources back and forth between the Republican zombies and the Democratic zombies, because the people at the margin who want to work are affected most and hurt the worst.

In Romney's expression the tax code and government spending are simply redistributive methods. In this view, the policies he is putting forth will just lessen the redistribution but will not make a bigger economy overall.

Most of those on government assistance would like to live a middle class life, the kind that is only truly available to the top 10% of our earning population. Those people should be easy to communicate to. Romney is not doing it with comments like this.

In Atlanta, they asked would you like a little "Sierra Tea" beating back transit tax

Karl Marx — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 03:32:59 GMT

The Tea Party grows up, opening itself up to coalition building. It worked in Atlanta.

On the other side stood the little guys: Debbie Dooley of the Atlanta Tea Party Patriots and Colleen Kiernan from the Georgia chapter of the Sierra Club. Despite seemingly dueling ideologies, they found common cause to lobby against a 1-cent-on-the-dollar tax to pay for 157 traffic-friendly projects in the metro area over 10 years.
Also on that side was local NAACP president John Evans - another unlikely partner, especially for the tea party, which some critics have seen as anti-minority and anti-immigrant.
The establishment bipartisans had a reported $8 million on hand to sell the transit package. The tea party alliance has been quoted as having $15,000, but tea party member Julianne Thompson, reached by the Monitor Wednesday, laughed that off. "We had maybe a few hundred dollars," she says.

The whole article is worth reading.

Implications of Dean Cavaretta's State Senate Race - Taxes

DeanCavaretta — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:41:00 GMT

The Senate race in the Middlesex and Worcester district features a contest between two candidates with very distinct platforms. I would argue, though, that given the choice between these two unique policies, that of Dean Cavaretta, the challenger, offers a vision for a far more stable economy in the state of Massachusetts than does the vision offered by incumbent James B. Eldridge.

To make my case, I seek to offer some of the more clear distinctions between the two candidates, ones which really highlight their divergent economic policies.
Senator Eldridge's economic record isn't terribly robust in terms of legislation that has been enacted, but instead is revealed in several bills that he's either written or supported. During his career, Senator Eldridge has been a proponent of increasing the sales tax, the income tax, the gas tax, and the capital gains tax. Senator Eldridge describes himself as a progressive Democrat, so his support of increasing the income tax and the capital gains tax comes as no surprise. However, the sales tax and gas tax are both inherently regressive, meaning that they place a greater burden on lower-income families than on higher-income families. Why such is the case for the sales tax is fairly simple - when your income is lower, you have to spend a greater proportion of your income to live than someone who makes more. The higher someone's income is, the greater the proportion of said income he or she will have left over to invest or save. If a consumer must spend a greater proportion of their income, then the sales tax is affecting a greater proportion of their income than someone who saves a greater proportion of his or her income, so that the sales tax, from a proportional standpoint, is affecting the lower-income consumer more.

To say that the gas tax is regressive, however, requires a slightly more complex case. Senator Eldridge, during a televised debate for the 5th District Congressional Seat, explained his justification for a gas tax, as well as the sort of system he would favor. His call for a gas tax has two key goals - the primary goal of shifting consumer behavior to benefit the environment, and the minor goal of raising revenue for the state. However, both goals pose problems for consumers. Senator Eldridge seems to assume that everyone, if they so choose, can switch to a more fuel-efficient vehicle at any given time, but there are large swaths of people who, even with an increase in the gas tax, would not be able to change their habits. Newer models of vehicles are more fuel efficient than older models, but are also more expensive than their older, used counterparts. And as we all know, vehicles, used or new, are expensive investments. It's true that Senator Eldridge made these comments before the recession hit, but even then, most consumers couldn't afford a hybrid, or even the newest, most fuel efficient version of whatever type of vehicle they need. So, while the idea of trying to change consumer behavior sounds good in theory, it has some serious problems in practice.

To avoid this issue, Senator Eldridge says that, in his system, the tax would only be realized when consumers spend over a certain amount of money on fuel. That way, only consumers driving larger, less fuel efficient vehicles would be taxed. Presumably, there would be some sort of system where gas consumption was tracked per consumer on a yearly basis, because any other system would offer huge loopholes (only buying small quantities at a time, going to different gas stations, etc.). This system would still disproportionately affect lower income consumers. Some people have no option but to have a van, truck, or SUV, whether it be for their work or their family. Once more, lower income consumers may have to settle for purchasing an older, less fuel efficient model, meaning that they will have to spend more on gasoline than someone who can purchase a newer model. Senator Eldridge likely didn't thoroughly consider these implications when devising his policy, but these are, nonetheless, the potential ramifications of such a tax.

Granted, there are many facets to this race that voters have to consider on a personal level, but from an economic perspective, Senator Eldridge's record raises some serious concerns.

http://marlborough.patch.com/b...

SELVAGGI: SCOTUS OBAMACARE DECISION MAKES IT MORE URGENT TO REPLACE CONGRESSMAN STEPHEN LYNCH

bizerk — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 15:50:31 GMT

THE SOUTH BOSTON DEMOCRAT VOTED AGAINST REPEALING THIS TAX ON THE MIDDLE CLASS

Boston, MA- Republican candidate for Congress in Massachusetts 8th District Joe Selvaggi reacted to the U.S. Supreme Court decision ruling that the Obamacare individual mandate is a tax:

"Now we know that Obamacare is the biggest middle class tax increase in the history of our nation," stated Selvaggi. "Didn't President (Barack) Obama and professional politicians like (Congressman Stephen) Lynch promised not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000? They broke their promise. This decision makes it even more imperative to elect a new Congressman."

"Congressman Lynch flip-flopped on the issue of Obamacare," continued Selvaggi. "He voted against it originally, but when Republicans took control of the House he voted against the repeal of Obamacare."

"He was against it before he was for it. Where is he today on it?" asked Selvaggi. "I am not sure if his inconsistent position is due to lack of knowledge of how this tax, formerly known as a mandate, hurts the business community. As a business owner, we provide health insurance for our employees. It is a very costly decision. I know many other small business owners just cannot afford to do it and keep people employed. It is time to elect a new Congressman who has extensive business experience not re-elect a flip-flopping professional politician."

"If we want to improve our economy and grow jobs, then we need to repeal the mandate/tax," concluded Selvaggi. "Don't believe me? Just look at all the unions and businesses that have sought exemptions from Obamacare."

Selvaggi will be releasing his plan for improving access and affordability of health care next month.

Selvaggi is a grandson of Italian immigrants, a US Navy veteran of the first Gulf War, a graduate of Worcester Polytechnic Institute and owner of a successful Massachusetts-based company, Plaster Fun Time.

For more information, voters can visit joeselvaggi2012.com